September 24, 2008

Did Obama Lie on his Illinois ARDC Lawyer Registration Form?

As outlined in more detail below, Mr. Philip A. Berg alleges, in his lawsuit against Obama, that Obama lied to the Illinois Supreme Court in his Attorney Registration filing. (Note: Berg's complaint has been dismissed, but he is appealing in both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court. See here for current status of his appeals.)

So, the question is, what's the evidence to support these allegations?

(Note: If you are aware of additionalevidence, that either supports or refuts the allegations, please submit it through a Comment, and we will update this information accordingly! Thank you!)

As explained by the ARDC-IL, (a) the "Full Licensed Name"displays the current name under which the attorney is licensed in Illinois; and (b) the "Full Former Name(s) displays any former names under which the attorney was licenced to practice law in Illinois:

"The ARDC master roll of registered attorneys lists a lawyer's name in the same manner as the name appears on the roll of attorneys. The roll of attorneys is a list of all attorneys admitted to practice of law in Illinois. ... A lawyer's name on the Clerk's roll of attorneys is the name under which the lawyer was admitted to the practice of law in Illinois or, if any name changes have been allowed by the Court, the most recent such change."

8/27 Update: The Illinois ARDC Clerk's Office confirms that

The Former Names Field contains only the name(s) of the person previously listed on the Illinois Master Roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Illinois; and

The Former Names Field does not refer to any name(s) adopted prior to becoming licensed to practice law in Illinois; nor does it refer to any informal names used by the attorney at issue.

Stated another way, if Alice Attorney gets married (or divorced) and changes her name to Alice Lawyer *after* she's admitted into practice, then she must file a name change with the Illinois Supreme Court. Her prior name -- i.e., the name under which she was admitted -- will show up as a former name.

To see this, conduct a search for Michelle Obama - a perfect example - here: the ARDC search for Michelle Obama provides a perfect example of this fact. Her results are as follows:

The screenshot produced on his website is a public record of Obama's public ARDC information.

Berg has provided no evidence to support his allegation that Barack had any former legal names.

Even assuming facts not in evidence - i.e., that Barack actually had former legal names, Berg has provided no evidence to support his allegation that Barack failed to disclose them to the Illinois Supreme Court. The ARDC simply does not reflect such information.

The ARDC Register website makes clear that the names listed on the attorney register are names under which the person was licenced to practice law in Illinois.

To clarify:

Assuming that Barack (a) had a different legal name, and -- to take it further, assuming that (b) he disclosed that legal name on his application for admission to the bar, that name would NOT show up on the Lawyer Register website.

The purpose of the Lawyer Register is for citizens to be able to search for lawyers and to see, e.g, if they've ever been subject to discipline by the Bar. Thus, if a person practiced under a different name, that other name must be disclosed. (Otherwise, a person who was disciplined could avoid "disclosure" simply by changing his/her name.) Thus, what shows up on the Lawyer Register website is other names that the attorney used during the practice of law.

In short, on the issue of whether Obama, assuming he had a different name, disclosed any such different name on his Illinois Bar Application, the screenshot of Obama's record in the Illinois Lawyer Register on Berg's website provides no evidence of that fact one way or the other.

9/23 Update: This conclusion section previously contained an analogy to illustrate a logical problem with Berg's argument. However, it has been reported to us that Berg and/or his representatives misunderstood the analogy to be an allegation of improper conduct against Berg. It was in no manner intended as such. Therefore, we have removed the analogy to prevent any other readers from misunderstanding the point. We generally make our corrections in "markup"/via strikethrough; however, given that reported misunderstanding of the text, we are deleting the comment in its entirety, to ensure that no one else makes that mistake.